Posts by glenster

31

When did Jehovah's Witnesses begin to consider their religion the one true religion?

by garyneal in

yesterday, my wife and i was going for a walk in the neighborhood.

she was carrying my niece and commenting on how heavy she is.

i told her that apparently her sister has to carry her child, diaper bag, and her things to the bus stop every morning.

glenster

The claim of being the spokeman for a literal 144,000, with accompanying
propaganda against those who disagree, started in the 1870's with Russell. See
information about that, and the claims you brought up, on the timeline on p.1a
at the next link.
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn1a.htm

7

cherubim

by nelly136 in

left guarding the garden of eden, so whats supposed to have happened to them?.

still supposed to be there or got bored and gone home?

have there ever been any alledged reports of cherubims seen on a horizon somewhere?.

glenster

"You know Jesus is Michael, the archangel."

The basic mainstream view has the stronger case about Jesus' identity. See
pp.6b-10 at the next link.
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn6b.htm

Is this leading up to another of your claims to be him?

16

about the BBC panorama expose

by highdose in

did anyone here actauy know the people cited as examples in that program?

also i was wondering how much good/ bad it did?

did it open anyones eyes?.

glenster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYd_0zwbB24

38

Does God believe in burning People?

by ssn587 in

reading the book, you can live forever in paradise earth, on page 81 end of paragraph two it reads, "this raises the question: did almighty god create such a place of torment?

well, what was god's view when the israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire?

he explains in his word: "they have built the high places of topheth, which is in the valley of the son of hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing i had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.".

glenster

A lot of the criticism aimed at God leaves out what the people are like, as if
they're so selflessly good with their free will that He doesn't have the right
to do anything to spoil their perfection. We know God can't be all-beneficent,
but people are in the see-able, touchable range, so we ought to know they
aren't, either.

Think of the God > people/people > animals analogy again and imagine the
criticism warranted for the bad human behavior of believers and non-believers
described at the 1st big batches of links on p.43 at the next link (and there's
enough in various categories beyond that to fill pages with links).
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id58.html

A person could get pretty cynical about what the bad behavior of a lot of
people seems like to them (Mark Twain joked that they're less than animals--"The
Reasoning Animal"). And that's to an equal quality being--imagine how it must
look to a much higher quality being. We might debate about when a person has
the right to use a weapon on an equal quality being, but He's in a position to
pull the plug on anyone with impunity and you don't think He should because
people are too good? Me, you, and Mark Twain are allowed to get cynical about
people and God can't? Why--He's some kind of omnipotent moron? I'd figure it
was a concept of an airhead if He couldn't.

You don't feel there's been a fair trial till you've looked at it from both
sides before rendering judgment.

Imagine it the other way around, from the view of the God of the God concept.
He gives everyone life, and what do they do for Him?--ruin the Earth with global
warming to what could be within a century of mortal destruction. He may be
amused to think that He doesn't need to create an Armageddon--they're hell-bent
on taking out everyone, good or bad, on their own and saving Him the trouble.

A person may eat hamburger, never rescue an animal from a pound, medical lab,
or the farm of a food processing plant, never keep a pet in their house let
alone house a vagrant, yet they think they're a nice person and others think
they are, too--they think it's that person's prerogative. But the same person
insists God has to want every lesser being like themself live forever in His
house--why? You wouldn't, and neither would I. Think about some of those peo-
ple you'd have to have around forever you wouldn't want to spend a minute with,
and they're equal quality beings. (That's why I wrote in an earlier post that
He'd want to change the name of the place to Hell.)

Plug it into the analogy. A guy has a ranch. The brown cows are killing the
yellow cows are killing the the white cows are killing the cows that go "Moo"
are killing the cows that don't go "Moo"--they just shake those bells around
their necks. And a guy goes by the ranch and says, "That rancher is no good to
me--I wouldn't believe in him unless he had all those cows live in his house."
(Notice at this juncture that guy sounds like a moron.) And the rancher is
thinking, "That's unfortunate, because I was thinking a hamburger would go good
about now." Of course, he'd kill it before he cooked it. And that's how it
works. It's something like that.

When you think of the God of the Bible, imagine how that analogy works back
and forth, not just one way, and sometimes it can help you get the intended
idea.

11

Deuteronomy 23:1

by elder-schmelder in

deuteronomy 23:1.

[a]if a mans testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the lord.. .

does this mean that he can get 12 way into the assembly of the lord, since only 12 was cut off?.

glenster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHGdgNu9LUo

3

One Hit Wonders

by littlerockguy in

im bored tonight and i was listening to music, mostly classic oldies, and came across the one hit wonder, "for what it's worth" one of my favs by the way, by buffalo springfield.

listening to the words of the music i can imagine how it would have been like to live during the time it was released in 1967. .

so, what are some of your fav one hit wonders, or flash-in-the-pan recording artists that had a major hit and one or two minor ones and then disappear.

glenster

More Buffalo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQC1-HFs1yY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GsQ668DBhc

I'm not sure if this was a hit (pre Led Zep rip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq3NwCHm-4U

Some one hit wonders are guilty pleasures

end of Shallow Hal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbREwVijbg

VC radio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtHEmVjVw8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQFKfOQ1aoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmoAqvcYiTc

38

Does God believe in burning People?

by ssn587 in

reading the book, you can live forever in paradise earth, on page 81 end of paragraph two it reads, "this raises the question: did almighty god create such a place of torment?

well, what was god's view when the israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire?

he explains in his word: "they have built the high places of topheth, which is in the valley of the son of hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing i had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.".

glenster

Another site about some of the verses brought up:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/human_sacrifice.html

Some editorials about God of the OT, as though He didn't create everything so
own everything and all life and have His prerogative about it all, as though He
didn't provide life but just takes it from equal quality beings without the
prerogative that gives Him the right and is just evil, should be qualified in a
few ways or they don't reject the concept but misunderstand it as though about a
king, which is very different in several important ways. God and stories about
Him in the OT are a faith concerns you could accept or reject anyway, but some
seem to reject a straw God that nobody had in mind.

The OT stories have it that God was making divine interventions seeing who
would abide an apparent giver and taker of all life. Without repeating long ex-
planations, a few things should be a part of the characterization (God's prer-
ogative, to be credible He can't be all beneficent or nobody would die or have
anything less than heavenly circumstances; people aren't all-beneficent, either;
a qualified analogy between God > people/people > animals; that the best you can
do is look at life and its hardships like Job and be glad for what life you got
and what good you found in it, etc.).

Some seem to take the dark side of God's prerogative as though all there was
to know about a human, which would mischaracterize the human let alone the God
concept. It can make for a creative pessimistic story by Mark Twain, but I'd
see it in that perspective as such.

Accusations that He's to be seen as a human king, an equal quality being
without God's prerogative, a king who didn't give them life but kills equal
quality beings, and there's nothing else to the concept, (add that people
aren't all-beneficent to equal quality human beings let alone animals, so who's
kidding who about who God is regarding?--Mark wasn't foolishly optimistic about
them, either...), misunderstand the concept instead of editorializing about it.

It progresses in the NT to something more like separation of church and state.
There's no need for a country with a belief or non-belief stance as the law of
the land, etc. (For balance, people have been hurt or killed due to a non-be-
lief law of the land, too.) I wouldn't want to see anyone hurt or killed over
such stuff short of a divine intervention, and I haven't seen one. That isn't
to say I'd reject God as though He were just a murderous king if it happened.

To simplify the God concept to a human king may make it easier to understand,
but you can simplify a thing into a distortion which is easier to remember but
since it's a distortion it isn't worth remembering.

38

Does God believe in burning People?

by ssn587 in

reading the book, you can live forever in paradise earth, on page 81 end of paragraph two it reads, "this raises the question: did almighty god create such a place of torment?

well, what was god's view when the israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire?

he explains in his word: "they have built the high places of topheth, which is in the valley of the son of hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing i had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.".

glenster

All overly 'centric believers and non-believers have an evil core of
superstition and cruelty and are hard to stomach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQRUcybOjOM

26

Trinity, 144,000, Earthly Paradise, and 1914 ...hmmm

by Butterflyleia85 in

http://144000.110mb.com/index.html.

ok i read this for 2 hours now, rereading it at least 6 times... still don't get it.. i still don't believe in the trinity as god jesus and holy spirit being one.

i am starting to see how the number 144,000 can be symbolic sence the rest of revelation is symbolic.

glenster

What I have on the mainstream view vs. the JWs leaders about the Father, Son,
and Spirit, the JWs leaders' claims of being the only rule-makers of a literal
144,000, etc., is at the next link.
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklynindex.htm

Elsewhere there, you can learn how to do wallrides in VC, etc.

38

Does God believe in burning People?

by ssn587 in

reading the book, you can live forever in paradise earth, on page 81 end of paragraph two it reads, "this raises the question: did almighty god create such a place of torment?

well, what was god's view when the israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire?

he explains in his word: "they have built the high places of topheth, which is in the valley of the son of hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing i had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.".

glenster

There seems to be a lot of concern to warn people against a tyrannical God
that sets people on fire. I have to say, for a tyrant, I haven't seen Him
appear and force anybody to do anything. He's awfully mild about how He holds
the reins for a tyrant. I think it's a faith concern.

In Mosaic law, burnt offerings were killed first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_offering

More generally, I don't like Mosaic law or the kind proposed by Muhammad--I
don't like making the belief or non-belief view the law of the land or you get
people hurt or killed over something I don't think people should be hurt or
killed over.

I think the Christian way, without a land with a militia to defend it, without
people executed if they convert away from it, without a lot of ethically un-
necessary rules about food and clothes that just create unnecessary walls of
alienation between people, with believers sent among the Jews and Gentiles with-
out giving offense, sacrificing of the self to gain them for God (1 Cor.10:31-
11:1), is the way to go if you're going to have faith about that. Those people,
centuries after Jesus, that tried to make Christianity the law of the land had a
bad system. Muhammad was claimed to be correcting the Bible, too, but I think it was
a regression to the worst things about Mosaic law--too retro. Unless I should
see a Divine intervention, I'd go with separation of church and state.

The concept of Hell is debated with literal fire only being the literalist
approach, so it's a forced point to use that as an accusation about God.